Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2009
Comparison between a dorsal and a belt tactile display prototype for decoding physiological events in the operating room.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmenting Critical Care Patient Monitoring Using Wearable Technology: Review of Usability and Human Factors.JMIR human factors · 2021Review
- Preventing Undesired Face-Touches With Wearable Devices and Haptic Feedback.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVibrotactile display technology represents an innovative method to communicate vital information on patients from physiological monitoring devices to clinicians. The increasing number of sensors used in clinical practice has increased the amount of information required to be communicated, overwhelming the capacity of visual and auditory displays. The capacity to communicate could be increased with the use of a tactile display. In this study, we have compared a dorsal (DTD) and belt tactile (TB) display prototype in terms of learnability, error rate, and efficiency.
methodsWe conducted a prospective randomized preclinical study with non-clinicians in a simulated clinical setting to compare the two tactile display prototypes. Information encoded in the tactile message included the type of physiological parameter monitored, the direction of change, and the magnitude of change. Following a period of training, 24 alerts were repeated three times for each display in random order. Each subject evaluated each display. Experiments were repeated with the addition of a distraction task.
resultsDTD stimuli were easier to learn (52 trials compared to 101 trials; P = 0.0003), but the accuracy in decoding following training did not differ between the two prototypes. The DTD took longer to display the information, resulting in a faster TB response time (start of stimulus to response; 9.3 +/- 1.4 s [mean +/- SD] vs. DTD, 10.0 +/- 1.4 s; F[1,27] = 4.66; P = 0.04). However, the DTD had a faster response interval (end of stimulus to response) compared to the TB (5.6 +/- 1.4 s vs. 8.0 +/- 1.4 s; F[1,27] = 47.91; P < 0.0001). Compared to the TB, performance was affected less by distraction with the DTD.
conclusionsThe communication of information on physiological parameters by tactile displays was easy to learn and accurate for both prototypes. The DTD was easier to learn and affected less by distraction. Further evaluation is required in a clinical setting with expert users to determine the clinical applicability of these prototypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19360477What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.